From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmoyer by Schmoyer v. Mexico Forge

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 21, 1994
538 Pa. 1 (Pa. 1994)

Summary

In Schmoyer v.Mexico Forge, Inc., 423 Pa. Super. 593, 621 A.2d 692 (1993), reversed on other grounds, 538 Pa. 1, 645 A.2d 811 (1994), a playground ride, which is considerably smaller than the door machine, was found to be an improvement to real property because it was anchored in concrete and embedded in the ground.

Summary of this case from Vargo v. Koppers Co., Inc.

Opinion

July 21, 1994.

Petition No. 232 Eastern District Allocatur Docket 1993 for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of Superior Court entered March 12, 1993, at No. 1054 Philadelphia 1992, 423 Pa. Super. 593, 621 A.2d 692, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, entered February 21, 1992 at No. 3012 January Term 1985.


ORDER


AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 1994, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal of Jeffrey, Richard and Joan Schmoyer along with their Application for Relief under Pa.R.A.P. 123 are hereby granted and the Opinion and Judgment of the Superior Court is reversed to the extent that it affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County directing a verdict in favor of Mexico Forge, Inc. The manufacturer of a mass produced product, in this case a Spin-Around, is not protected by the Pennsylvania 12 year statute of repose, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5536(a), and a directed verdict should not have been entered in favor of Mexico Forge, Inc., the manufacturer. Noll v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 537 Pa. 274, 643 A.2d 81 (1994); McConnaughey v. Building Components, Inc., 536 Pa. 95, 637 A.2d 1331 (1994).

The cross-petition for allowance of appeal filed by Mexico Forge, Inc. is denied but this matter is remanded to the Superior Court so it may decide the issues raised by Mexico Forge, Inc., in its appeal to that court but left undecided because of the Superior Court's disposition of the statute of repose issue.

Mr. Justice Montemuro is sitting by designation as Senior Justice pursuant to Judicial Assignment Docket No. 94 R1801, due to the unavailability of Mr. Justice Larsen, see No. 127 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1, filed October 28, 1993.


Summaries of

Schmoyer by Schmoyer v. Mexico Forge

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 21, 1994
538 Pa. 1 (Pa. 1994)

In Schmoyer v.Mexico Forge, Inc., 423 Pa. Super. 593, 621 A.2d 692 (1993), reversed on other grounds, 538 Pa. 1, 645 A.2d 811 (1994), a playground ride, which is considerably smaller than the door machine, was found to be an improvement to real property because it was anchored in concrete and embedded in the ground.

Summary of this case from Vargo v. Koppers Co., Inc.
Case details for

Schmoyer by Schmoyer v. Mexico Forge

Case Details

Full title:Jeffrey SCHMOYER, a minor, by his parents, Richard and Joan SCHMOYER and…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 21, 1994

Citations

538 Pa. 1 (Pa. 1994)
645 A.2d 811

Citing Cases

Vargo v. Koppers Co., Inc.

See, McConnaughey, 536 Pa. 95, 637 A.2d at 1334. Thus, a party who simply manufactures a product is outside…

Hill v. United States

; see also Kephart, 2015 WL 1245825, at *5-6 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2015) (finding that the parties objectively…